thank you mike and WFA for posting the pictures of the anomalie prior to phobos 2's "malfunction". i've always wondered if i had really seen them and now i know for certain i have.
beachcoma asked about the shadow and the object. personally i believe the shadow is from the object photographed shortly before phobos 2 mysteriously stopped functioning. they look to be almost exactly the same shape and one would imagine an object in that high an orbit would project a shadow that large on the surface.

i also personally believe that these images from phobos 2 are probably a big help to gathering evidence for the existence of vehicles of unknown origin. as far as i know large cylindrical objects are not commonplace in space.

Originally posted by anti72
nice SCI-FI.

perhaps Mike is a disinfo poster? the whole UFO / alien story is fake, mad up by a global elite.
there are no aliens.
its made up to confuse and divert.

its all photoshopped.just think.no evidence.
but nice.

The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. You provide much less proof for your position on the matter than Mike does for his. The last time people were this closed-minded, they thought the earth was flat. Remember, just because you don't know, doesn't mean there's nothing left to learn.

Originally posted by Unit541
The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

True, but neither is it evidence of presence. Absence of evidence doesn't automatically imply a greater chance of every other possible (or impossible) case happening. If I have a shoe box, and I have no evidence that there is an apple in it, does that add support to the idea that there is an apple in it?

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
And just because other people say the same thing, doesn't make it true.

Yes it does to a great extent! Because it's corroborative evidence. This aspect lends weight to an argument/statement. Just to enlighten you a bit.

In 1963, Raymond H. Wilson Jr., Chief of Applied Mathematics at NASA, joined Shklovsky and Dr. Singer in their Martian conclusions. He stated that "Phobos might be a colossal base orbiting Mars."

And who says that all what he said is true? We don't have proof. We haven't as yet opened that alien entry hatch on Phobos through which we could enter their bridge, point ahead and say, " Warp 8. Make it so"! And we haven't found our alien 'Scotty' just yet! So you need to cool off, some!

What we're trying to do here is to see how credible his observations are. Got it? A layman explanation couldn't have been simpler, what?

[edit on 18-1-2008 by mikesingh]

you say weird anomolies. what are those anomolies?

Originally posted by blueyedevil666
hes actually 100% correct in his claim of no aliens...well done.

And you know this how? That's like saying, "There absolutely is no God, period", or, "There definitely *is* a God, beyond doubt."

There may not be aliens, but there's lots of good reasons to believe that there could be, and that the universe is teaming with life. Scientific reasons. Not blind-faith, thoughtless reasons.

Originally posted by Unit541

The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. You provide much less proof for your position on the matter than Mike does for his. The last time people were this closed-minded, they thought the earth was flat. Remember, just because you don't know, doesn't mean there's nothing left to learn.

The famous Clifford Stone quote. The last resort believers use as a counter argument when they are forced into a corner and ran out of ideas on what to say.

"The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. " This is the same point of view that people would use when they counter argument towards atheists by saying "Prove to me that God doesn't exist". And by saying "The absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. " you imply "Prove to me that aliens don't exist"

Well That's not how it works.

The burden of proof is not in the hands of the non-believers. That would be stupid and laughable.

"So wait...you want me to prove that something I can't see, hear, touch, smell, or taste is not real?"

Doesn't that sounds a bit preposterous to you?

To use the example found in Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, a celestial teapot is in orbit around Mars. However, it is SO small that even the most powerful telescopes are unable to see it. If you asked me to prove that it existed and I replied with "No, you prove to me that the celestial teapot DOESN'T exist," wouldn't that be slightly laughable?

DENY IGNORANCE





Me win.









[edit on 19-1-2008 by omnicron]

Originally posted by omnicron
That photo is simply fake. The then communist Russians would do anything to make themselves 'important' by claiming outrageous 'claims'. If this was true, it would be all over the news then....

So, the News is the arbiter of veracity? That's your proof? Our mainstream media is famous for ridiculing UFOs and the like, as a knee-jerk reaction, and has been for decades. Being ignored by the news would be par for the course, and means absolutely nothing in regards to whether or not the event actually happened as claimed.

Originally posted by omnicron

Me win.

No you don't.